[Notes from Personal Democracy Forum 2007 in New York]
Seth Godin – a marketing blogger who’s doing a very amusing talk with lots of good sound bites and funny slides, mostly arguing that politicians need to be aware of the paradigm shift that’s happened in how marketing and political campaigns work.

Vince Lombardi was wrong when he said quitters never win and winners never quit, that’s baloney, we all quit ballet lessons and we’re doing fine.

We need an ugly president – and that’s not going to happen in today’s system. Everyone in this room’s business is to spread ideas. The reason it costs a billion dollars to elect a president today is that the system doesn’t work anymore. There’s too much clutter – people no longer listen to all the ads, we’re not interested. There’s something really broken here. We can’t just keep branding everything and yelling at people. Marketers think like the Medusa: if they put an ad in front of us we’ll turn to stone and read it. Spam’s not working anymore though.

Marketers instead should think about the privilege of delivering anticipated, personal and relevant messages to people who actually want to hear these messages.
91% of real estate agents never contact the buyer or seller of a house after the deal is struck (I’m not sure if he thinks this is a good thing or a bad thing. Good, I guess? I wouldn’t want to hear from the agent again unless something went wrong with the deal.)

You have to try to talk to the early adopters. Admitedly the geeks and the nerds are sometimes wrong (e.g. Howard Dean) but the early adopters are the ones who’ll get the message transmitted to the big masses, who are experts at ignoring spam advertising.

People like doing what other people are doing. Showed a slide: “Clap your hands in unison until I say stop” – and it took all of four seconds for the audience to clap in unison. We like doing things together. Like the macarena. Cumulative advantage – people look at bestseller lists to see what other people are doing.

Ralph Nadar – most powerful non-elected person. He has spent ZERO dollars on advertising. It’s not word of mouth, it’s flipping the megaphone and amplifying people who agree with you, you have lots of people out there who are repeating your message for you. You give up some control but get a conversation in return.

New cycle:
Be remarkable (worth voting for, supporting) –> tell a story to the people who want to hear from you –> they spread the word –> get permission (huh?) –> be remarkable

Good news: maybe we can start electing people we’re proud of again.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. steve masur

    Jill, if contact is king, how does one contact you? Is this the only way?

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.